Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:16)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:19)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
`
`IN RE ANADARKO PETROLEUM
`CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION,
`R.A. WALKER, ROBERT G. GWIN,
`ROBERT P. DANIELS AND ERNEST A.
`LEYENDECKER,
`
`Petitioners.
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
`to the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Texas,
`Docket No. 4:20-CV-576
`Honorable Charles R. Eskridge, III
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT
`OF MANDAMUS
`Volume I of I
`
`Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
`Kevin J. Orsini
`Lauren M. Rosenberg
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`
`Shipley Snell Montgomery LLP
`George T. Shipley
`712 Main Street, Suite 1400
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`

`

`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan Under Rule 26(f) of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`[ECF No. 77] ................................................................................ MR589
`
`
`Deposition Stipulation ............................................................................ MR607
`
`Plaintiffs’ Letter to the Honorable Charles R. Eskridge, III, Re: In re
`Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 4:20-cv-00576 (S.D. Tex.)
`[ECF No. 203] .............................................................................. MR610
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00576
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`The Honorable Vanessa D. Gilmore
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`GEORGIA FIREFIGHTERS’ PENSION
`FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All
`Others Similarly Situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`ANADARKO PETROLEUM
`CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
`UNDER RULE 26(f) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`M589
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`Lead Plaintiffs Norfolk County Council as Administering Authority of the Norfolk Pension
`
`Fund, Iron Workers Local #580 Joint Funds, and Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund
`
`(collectively, “Lead Plaintiff”) and Defendants Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”),
`
`R.A. Walker (“Walker”), Robert G. Gwin (“Gwin”), Robert P. Daniels (“Daniels”), and Ernest A.
`
`Leyendecker, III (“Leyendecker”) (collectively, “Defendants,” and together with Lead Plaintiff,
`
`the “Parties”) respectfully submit this Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan pursuant to the
`
`Court’s March 5, 2021 Order (ECF No. 67) in advance of the Initial Pretrial and Scheduling
`
`Conference set for April 16, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.
`
`1.
`
`State when the parties conferred as required by Rule 26(f), and identify the counsel
`who conferred.
`
`Counsel for the Parties met and conferred by telephone in accordance with Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(f) on Monday, March 29, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time.
`
`Participants were:
`
`For Lead Plaintiff:
`
`Rachel L. Jensen, Sara B. Polychron, and Francisco J. Mejia
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
`655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone:
`619/231-1058
`Email:
`rachelj@rgrdlaw.com
`
`
`spolychron@rgrdlaw.com
`
`
`fmejia@rgrdlaw.com
`
`For Defendants:
`
`Nathalie J.K. Baker, Flora Ng, and Benjamin M. Wylly
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone:
`212/474-1000
`Email:
`nbaker@cravath.com
`
`
`fng@cravath.com
`
`
`bwylly@cravath.com
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 1 -
`
`M590
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`2.
`
`List the cases related to this one that are pending in any state or federal court with
`the case number and court.
`
`Brown v. Walker, et al., C.A. No. 1:20-cv-00470-RGA (D. Del.). On April 3, 2020,
`
`Barbara Brown, individually and on behalf of nominal defendants Anadarko and Occidental
`
`Petroleum Corporation (“Occidental”), filed a double derivative complaint alleging breaches of
`
`fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate
`
`assets, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
`
`(“Exchange Act”). Id., ECF No. 1. The Brown action raises different causes of actions, but
`
`involves a common set of alleged facts. On April 28, 2020, the court stayed and administratively
`
`closed the action. Id., ECF Nos. 10-11. By order dated May 28, 2020, the court consolidated
`
`Brown with Watson v. Walker, et al., C.A. No. 1:20-cv-00671-RGA (D. Del.). Id., ECF No. 13.
`
`3.
`
`Briefly describe what this case is about.
`
`a.
`
`Lead Plaintiff’s Statement
`
`As the Complaint1 details, this securities fraud class action is about Defendants’ alleged
`
`scheme to defraud investors regarding the commercial viability and producible resource size of
`
`Shenandoah (“Shen”), a deep-water oilfield in the Gulf of Mexico. Lead Plaintiff alleges that
`
`leading up to and throughout the Class Period,2 Defendants hailed Shen to investors as a “high[]
`
`quality” multi-billion-dollar opportunity. ¶¶29-34. Lead Plaintiff alleges that, in truth, Shen was
`
`a billion-dollar-money pit, as Defendants were forced to disclose in part to investors on May 2,
`
`2017, when Anadarko revealed by way of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)
`
`filing a $467 million impairment charge and $435 million charge for suspended exploratory well
`
`1 The Complaint refers to the Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
`filed on August 17, 2020 (ECF No. 55). All “¶_” or “¶¶_” references are to the Complaint, and
`citations and internal quotations are omitted throughout, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`2 The Class Period is February 20, 2015 to May 2, 2017, inclusive.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 2 -
`
`M591
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`costs. ¶¶7, 151-152. Following this news, the price of Anadarko’s common stock tumbled by 8%.
`
`¶¶7, 154.
`
`To pull off their scheme, Lead Plaintiff alleges Defendants employed various means and
`
`methods to conceal the truth from investors and their business partners, including: (i) publicly
`
`touting positive information about Shen while concealing negative information (¶¶97-140);
`
`(ii) using false maps (¶¶45, 53-54, 60-62, 70, 72, 80); (iii) hiding faulting from partners (¶¶5, 28,
`
`58-61, 67, 72, 84); (iv) disregarding evidence from Anadarko engineers and geologists showing
`
`Shen to be vastly overstated (¶¶6, 42-49, 53-62, 70); (v) ignoring internal audits from their Risk
`
`Consistency Team requiring a significant downward adjustment for Shen (¶¶6, 65-67, 69);
`
`(vi) intimidating and punishing employees for speaking out (¶¶6, 42-49, 60-63, 68-76); and
`
`(vii) engaging in a years-long campaign to silence employees, including concealing a
`
`whistleblower complaint to prevent investors from learning the truth before Defendants cashed-in
`
`on millions of dollars in “golden parachute” payouts as part of Occidental’s acquisition of
`
`Anadarko (¶¶8-10, 77-79, 86-91, 150, 156).
`
`Defendants allegedly wielded every tool at their disposal to suppress the truth, which
`
`Senior Reservoir Engineer Lea Frye (“Frye”) tried to expose. Indeed, Defendants allegedly kept
`
`their scheme under wraps until November 4, 2019, when the Fifth Circuit published an opinion in
`
`Frye v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 953 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019), revealing for the first time Frye’s
`
`whistleblower allegations that Anadarko had “fraudulently overstated the economic prospects of
`
`its Shenandoah
`
`[assets] . . . and
`
`then
`
`retaliated against her
`
`for objecting
`
`to
`
`these
`
`misrepresentations.” Id. at 288. As Frye alleged, Anadarko “‘knew the Shenandoah resource was
`
`less than half the size Defendant had originally claimed in March 2014,’” but “‘made no
`
`corrections to its original projections’” during the Class Period. Id.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 3 -
`
`M592
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`b.
`
`Defendants’ Statement
`
`Defendants deny all of Lead Plaintiff’s allegations, and deny that Lead Plaintiff or any
`
`putative class member are entitled to any relief. Defendants contend they did not make any
`
`statements that were materially false, and did not make any statements that were misleading due
`
`to the omission of material information. Defendants contend that following its discovery of the
`
`Shenandoah oil field in 2009 and throughout the class period, Anadarko and its executives made
`
`clear to investors that the Company was engaged in a routine information gathering process,
`
`including drilling a series of appraisal wells, to assess the commercial viability of the Shenandoah
`
`oil field discovery. Defendants contend that they explained the commercial viability of the
`
`Shenandoah oil field was contingent upon, among other things, the price of oil, costs of offshore
`
`drilling operations and data obtained from the appraisal wells. Defendants contend that they
`
`completely and accurately updated investors on the progress of the appraisal project but did not
`
`publicly offer estimates of the Shenandoah oil field’s economic value during the class period.
`
`Indeed, Lead Plaintiff has not alleged a single public statement during the class period that
`
`predicted the commercial viability of the Shenandoah oil field discovery and the dispute within
`
`the Company relating to internal projections has no bearing on the truth of Defendants’ external
`
`statements. Defendants contend that any dispute concerning the Shenandoah oil field between
`
`members of Anadarko’s exploration and development teams was simply a matter of differences of
`
`opinion among professionals, and there was no scheme or course of business at Anadarko intended
`
`to suppress any information about the Shenandoah oil field, let alone Frye and her colleagues’
`
`analysis. Defendants contend that any losses suffered by Lead Plaintiff or any putative class
`
`member following the decline in Anadarko’s stock price on May 2, 2017 are attributable to the
`
`Company’s earnings results and other, Company-specific, negative news entirely unrelated to the
`
`alleged misrepresentations.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 4 -
`
`M593
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`4.
`
`Specify the allegation of federal jurisdiction.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action on the basis of a federal question pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §1331 and §27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78aa.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Name the parties who disagree and the reasons.
`
`No party disagrees that this Court has jurisdiction over the action.
`
`List anticipated additional parties that should be included, when they can be added,
`and by whom they are wanted.
`
`Lead Plaintiff reserves the right to name additional defendants with the benefit of
`
`discovery, including, but not limited to, Occidental.
`
`Defendants’ position is that joinder of additional parties should be limited by the Federal
`
`Rules.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`List anticipated interventions.
`
`The Parties do not anticipate any interventions at this time.
`
`Describe class-action issues.
`
`a.
`
`Lead Plaintiff’s Statement
`
`The class claims alleged in the Complaint satisfy all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
`
`(b)(3), including numerosity, typicality, adequacy, commonality, predominance, and superiority.
`
`See, e.g., ¶¶165-171. The Class is entitled to a presumption of reliance under Basic Inc. v.
`
`Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), and/or Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S.
`
`128 (1972). ¶¶158-161. Lead Plaintiff will move for class certification by the deadline set by the
`
`Court.
`
`b.
`
`Defendants’ Statement
`
`Defendants deny Lead Plaintiff’s class action allegations, including that the alleged class
`
`is entitled to any presumption of reliance, state they are entitled to discovery on these issues and
`
`anticipate they will oppose class certification on various grounds by the deadline set by the Court.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 5 -
`
`M594
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`Defendants reserve the right to present evidence rebutting any presumption of reliance to which
`
`Lead Plaintiff claims it is entitled under applicable law.
`
`9.
`
`State whether each party represents that it has made the initial disclosures required
`by Rule 26(a). If not, describe the arrangements that have been made to complete
`the disclosures.
`
`The Parties served their Rule 26(a) initial disclosures on March 25, 2021.
`
`10.
`
`Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan, including:
`
`A.
`
`Responses to all matters raised in Rule 26(f).
`
`The Parties have agreed to the following deadlines for a Rule 16 scheduling order:
`
`DATE
`EVENT
`Parties Serve First Requests for the Production of Documents April 22, 2021
`August 13, 20214
`Substantial Completion of Lead Plaintiff’s Production and
`Defendants’ Priority Production (to be conducted on a rolling
`basis)3
`Substantial Completion of Lead Plaintiff and Defendants’
`Privilege Logs (to be provided on a rolling basis)
`
`September 10, 2021
`
`3 Defendants shall prioritize the production of the May 9, 2016 letter identified in the Complaint,
`including all exhibits thereto (the “SEC Letter”), and all other documents previously identified or
`produced to a third party related to any subject matter in the SEC Letter. Defendants reserve their
`rights to limit the production by appropriate document requests, in accordance with federal and
`local rules. The Parties reserve all their rights to respond and object to document requests in
`accordance with federal and local rules.
`
`4 Any follow-up discovery requests based on Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification must
`be served by October 8, 2021. Lead Plaintiff shall endeavor to respond by November 5, 2021. To
`the extent that responsive documents are not produced by November 5, 2021, Defendants reserve
`the right to request an extension to file their opposition brief. Lead Plaintiff shall negotiate any
`such request in good faith.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 6 -
`
`M595
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`EVENT
`
`DATE
`
`Class Certification
`- Opening Brief5
`- Opposition Brief6
`- Reply Brief
`Substantial Completion of Defendants’ Remaining Production
`(to be conducted on a rolling basis)
`
`Substantial Completion of Defendants’ Privilege Logs (to be
`provided on a rolling basis)
`Completion of Fact Discovery (written discovery, including
`contention interrogatories and requests for admission, must be
`served at least 45 days prior to deadline)
`Expert Reports
`- Opening Expert Disclosures (by the Parties with respect to
`issues on which they bear the burden of proof)
`- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
`Completion of Expert Discovery
`
`- October 1, 2021
`- December 10, 2021
`-
`February 4, 2022
`November 4, 2021 (for
`any document requests
`sent at least 45 days
`prior to deadline)
`December 2, 2021
`
`May 25, 2022
`
`-
`
`June 24, 2022
`
`- August 12, 2022
`
`October 20, 2022
`
`5 Lead Plaintiff shall serve the report of any expert offered in support of its class certification
`motion concurrently with the filing of such motion, except for any expert offered in rebuttal to
`Defendants’ opposition. Defendants may depose and seek discovery from any expert offered in
`support of Lead Plaintiff’s opening papers at any time prior to the deadline for Defendants’
`opposition to class certification. Any such expert shall be made available for deposition on a
`mutually agreeable date at least 18 days before the deadline for Defendants’ opposition to class
`certification. Lead Plaintiff shall make itself available for deposition on a mutually agreeable date
`at least 18 days before the deadline for Defendants’ opposition to class certification. This protocol
`applies only to experts used in connection with class certification and shall not apply to any
`subsequent expert discovery.
`
`6 Defendants shall serve the report of any expert offered in opposition to class certification
`concurrently with the filing of their opposition to class certification. Lead Plaintiff may depose
`and seek discovery from any such expert at any time prior to the deadline for Lead Plaintiff’s reply
`in support of class certification. Any such expert shall be made available for deposition on a
`mutually agreeable date at least 18 days before the deadline for Lead Plaintiff’s reply in support
`of class certification. This protocol applies only to experts used in connection with class
`certification and shall not apply to any subsequent expert discovery.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 7 -
`
`M596
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`EVENT
`Daubert and Summary Judgment Motions
`- Opening Briefs
`- Opposition Briefs
`- Reply Briefs
`Pre-Trial Order
`Docket Call
`
`DATE
`
`- November 10, 2022
`- December 16, 2022
`-
`January 20, 2023
`April 7, 2023
`April 17, 2023
`
`B.
`
`When and to whom the plaintiff anticipates it may send interrogatories.
`
`Lead Plaintiff currently anticipates it may elect to send interrogatories to Defendants after
`
`they substantially complete their document productions in this case.
`
`C.
`
`When and to whom the defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories.
`
`Defendants anticipate sending an initial set of interrogatories to Lead Plaintiff and other
`
`persons and entities identified through discovery after Lead Plaintiff, and any other person or entity
`
`identified through discovery, substantially completes their document productions in this case, and
`
`follow-up interrogatories on or before the deadline for service of written discovery demands set
`
`by the Court.
`
`D.
`
`Of whom and by when the plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions.
`
`Lead Plaintiff anticipates taking the oral depositions of Defendants and many of the
`
`individuals and/or entities listed in its Rule 26(a) initial disclosures. Lead Plaintiff will begin
`
`taking oral depositions after Defendants substantially complete their document production. In
`
`addition, Lead Plaintiff anticipates taking depositions of other witnesses identified through
`
`Defendants’ documents and depositions.
`
`The parties initially agree to 20 depositions per side. In the event that any party seeks to
`
`take more than 20 depositions per side, the party shall, at the appropriate time, make an application
`
`to the Court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) setting forth the basis for the additional deposition.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 8 -
`
`M597
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`Defendants reserve all rights to challenge the number of additional depositions and specific
`
`deponents to the full extent permitted by the Federal Rules.
`
`E.
`
`Of whom and by when the defendant anticipates taking oral depositions.
`
`Defendants anticipate deposing Lead Plaintiff, the individuals and entities listed in Lead
`
`Plaintiff’s initial disclosures, and other persons and entities identified through discovery.
`
`Defendants anticipate conducting those depositions after they send document requests and receive
`
`substantially complete document productions in response thereto.
`
`The parties initially agree to 20 depositions per side. In the event that any party seeks to
`
`take more than 20 depositions per side, the party shall, at the appropriate time, make an application
`
`to the Court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) setting forth the basis for the additional deposition.
`
`Defendants reserve all rights to challenge the number of additional depositions and specific
`
`deponents to the full extent permitted by the Federal Rules.
`
`F.
`
`When the plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) will be
`able to designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule
`26(a)(2)(B), and when the opposing party will be able to designate responsive
`experts and provide their reports.
`
`The Parties intend to designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)
`
`by the deadlines set forth above, unless later modified by agreement of the Parties or by Court
`
`order.
`
`G.
`
`List expert depositions the plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on
`an issue) anticipates taking and their anticipated completion date. See Rule
`26(a)(2)(B) (expert report).
`
`The Parties anticipate deposing all timely disclosed experts by the deadlines set forth
`
`above, unless such deadlines are later modified by agreement of the Parties or by Court order.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 9 -
`
`M598
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`H.
`
`List expert depositions the opposing party anticipates taking and their
`anticipated completion date. See Rule 26(a)(2)(B) (expert report).
`
`The Parties anticipate deposing all timely disclosed experts by the deadlines set forth
`
`above, unless such deadlines are later modified by agreement of the Parties or by Court order.
`
`11.
`
`If the parties are not agreed on a part of the discovery plan, describe the separate
`views and proposals of each party.
`
`The parties are in agreement on all parts of the discovery plan at this time.
`
`12.
`
`Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date.
`
`The parties are currently in the process of preparing to propound discovery.
`
`13.
`
`State the date planned discovery can reasonably be completed.
`
`The Parties intend to complete fact discovery by May 25, 2022, and expert discovery by
`
`October 20, 2022, unless such deadlines are modified by agreement of the Parties or by Court
`
`order.
`
`14.
`
`Describe the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case that were
`discussed in your Rule 26(f) meeting.
`
`The parties will remain in contact regarding prospects for settlement, but presently agree
`
`that formal settlement discussions are premature. To the extent the parties seek a settlement or
`
`other alternative resolution of this matter, the parties agree to mediation before a mutually
`
`acceptable private mediator.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt
`resolution.
`
`See above answer to question number 14.
`
`From the attorneys’ discussion with the client, state the alternative dispute resolution
`techniques that are reasonably suitable, and state when such a technique may be
`effectively used in this case.
`
`See above answer to question number 14.
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 10 -
`
`M599
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 12 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`17. Magistrate judges may now hear jury and non-jury trials. Indicate the parties’ joint
`position on a trial before a magistrate judge.
`
`The Parties wish to proceed at trial before the assigned District Judge.
`
`18.
`
`State whether a jury demand has been made and if was made on time.
`
`Lead Plaintiff timely demanded a jury trial.
`
`19.
`
`Specify the number of hours it will take to present the evidence in this case.
`
`The Parties’ preliminary estimate is that it will take approximately 60 hours to present the
`
`evidence at trial.
`
`20.
`
`List pending motions that could be ruled on at the initial pretrial and scheduling
`conference.
`
`None.
`
`21.
`
`List other motions pending.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`There are no motions currently pending before the Court.
`
`Indicate other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, that deserve the
`special attention of the court at the conference.
`
`None at this time.
`
`Certify that all parties have filed Disclosure of Interested Parties as directed in the
`Order for Conference and Disclosure of Interested Parties, listing the date of filing
`for original and any amendments.
`
`On March 3, 2020, Georgia Firefighters’ Pension Fund filed a certificate of financially
`
`interested parties. ECF No. 6. On March 5, 2020, Anadarko filed a certificate of interested
`
`persons. ECF No. 7. On April 22, 2020, Georgia Firefighters’ Pension Fund filed an amended
`
`certificate of financially interested parties. ECF No. 29. On March 31, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed
`
`an amended certificate of financially interested parties. ECF No. 75.
`
`24.
`
`List the names, bar numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers of all counsel.
`
`For Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
`
`Joe Kendall, TX Bar No. 11260700
`KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 11 -
`
`M600
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 13 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Telephone:
`214/744-3000
`
`Mark Solomon, CA Bar No. 151949
`Jason A. Forge, admitted pro hac vice, CA Bar No. 181542
`Rachel L. Jensen, admitted pro hac vice, CA Bar No. 211456
`Sara B. Polychron, admitted pro hac vice, CA Bar No. 244685
`Francisco J. Mejia, admitted pro hac vice, CA Bar No. 306477
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
`655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone:
`619/231-1058
`
`For Defendants:
`
`George T. Shipley, TX Bar No. 18267100
`SHIPLEY SNELL MONTGOMERY LLP
`712 Main Street, Suite 1400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone:
`713/652-5920
`
`Daniel Slifkin, admitted pro hac vice, NY Bar No. 2439768
`Benjamin Gruenstein, admitted pro hac vice, NY Bar No. 3897758
`Nathalie J.K. Baker, admitted pro hac vice, NY Bar No. 5508379
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone:
`212/474-1000
`
`The Parties look forward to discussing these matters with Your Honor at the April 16, 2021
`
`Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference.
`
`DATED: April 9, 2021
`
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
`& DOWD LLP
`MARK SOLOMON
`JASON A. FORGE
`RACHEL L. JENSEN
`SARA B. POLYCHRON
`FRANCISCO J. MEJIA
`
`s/ Rachel L. Jensen
`RACHEL L. JENSEN
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 12 -
`
`M601
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 14 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619/231-1058
`619/231-7423 (fax)
`marks@rgrdlaw.com
`jforge@rgrdlaw.com
`rachelj@rgrdlaw.com
`spolychron@rgrdlaw.com
`fmejia@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff
`
`KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
`JOE KENDALL (Texas Bar No. 11260700)
` Attorney-in-charge
`3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Telephone: 214/744-3000
`214/744-3015 (fax)
`jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
`
`Texas Local Counsel for Lead Plaintiff
`
`SHIPLEY SNELL MONTGOMERY LLP
`GEORGE T. SHIPLEY
`
`s/ George T. Shipley
`GEORGE T. SHIPLEY
`
`State Bar No. 18267100
`Federal ID No. 02118
`712 Main Street, Suite 1400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713/652-5920
`713/652-3057 (fax)
`gshipley@shipleysnell.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`DATED: April 9, 2021
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 13 -
`
`M602
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 15 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`DANIEL SLIFKIN (pro hac vice)
`BENJAMIN GRUENSTEIN (pro hac vice)
`NATHALIE J.K. BAKER (pro hac vice)
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: 212/474-1000
`dslifkin@cravath.com
`bgruenstein@cravath.com
`nbaker@cravath.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`- 14 -
`
`M603
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 16 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I served the foregoing on all counsel of record who have appeared in
`
`this matter via the Court’s CM/ECF system on this, the 9th day of April 2021.
`
`s/ Rachel L. Jensen
`RACHEL L. JENSEN
`
`4835-6665-7252.v1
`
`M604
`
`

`

`4/9/2021
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 17 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern-
`Mailing Information for a Case 4:20-cv-00576 Georgia Firefighters'
`Pension Fund v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation et al
`Electronic Mail Notice List
`
`The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case.
`
`Thomas Robert Ajamie
`tajamie@ajamie.com,jedwards@ajamie.com,dmolloy@ajamie.com,wharrelson@ajamie.com
`
`Michael Albert
`malbert@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Naumon A Amjed
`namjed@ktmc.com
`
`Nathalie Jill Kun Baker
`nbaker@cravath.com
`
`Ryan T Degnan
`rdegnan@ktmc.com
`
`John Saul Edwards , Jr
`
`jedwards@ajamie.com,clometti@cohenmilstein.com,tneumayr@ajamie.com,efilings@cohenmilstein.com
`
`Thomas W. Elrod
`telrod@kmllp.com
`
`Joseph G Epstein
`joe@epsteintexaslaw.com,melissa@epsteintexaslaw.com
`
`Jason A Forge
`jforge@rgrdlaw.com,kmccormack@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Benjamin Gruenstein
`bgruenstein@cravath.com,mao@cravath.com,nbaker@cravath.com,fng@cravath.com
`
`Rachel L Jensen
`rachelj@rgrdlaw.com,e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Joe Kendall
`jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com,administrator@kendalllawgroup.com
`
`Francisco J Mejia
`fmejia@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Danielle S Myers
`dmyers@rgrdlaw.com,dmyers@ecf.courtdrive.com,e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Sara B Polychron
`spolychron@rgrdlaw.com,SPolychron@ecf.courtdrive.com
`
`Ira M Press
`ipress@kmllp.com
`
`https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?156638051857069-L_1_0-1
`
`M605
`
`1/2
`
`

`

`4/9/2021
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00576 Document 77 Filed on 04/09/21 in TXSD Page 18 of 18
`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern-
`George T Shipley
`gshipley@shipleysnell.com,karinder@shipleysnell.com,cmoore@shipleysnell.com
`
`Daniel Slifkin
`dslifkin@cravath.com
`
`Manual Notice List
`
`The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore
`require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing
`program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients.
`
`(No manual recipients)
`
`https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?156638051857069-L_1_0-1
`
`M606
`
`2/2
`
`

`

`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`In re ANADARKO PETROLEUM
`CORPORATION SECURITIES
`LITIGATION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00576
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`The Honorable Charles R. Eskridge III
`
`DEPOSITION STIPULATION
`
`
`
`
`4892-1713-0549.v1
`
`M607
`
`

`

`Case: 23-20350 Document: 41 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/25/2023
`
`This Stipulation is entered into between Lead Plaintiffs Norfolk County Council as
`
`Administering Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund, Iron Workers Local #580 Joint Funds,
`
`and Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund, and defendants Anadarko Petroleum
`
`Corporation, R.A. Walker, Robert G. Gwin, Robert P. Daniels, and Ernest A. Leyendecker,
`
`III (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through undersigned counsel.
`
`NOW, THEREFOR, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the
`
`following provisions will govern depositions of fact witnesses following discovery’s
`
`conclusion:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Parties anticipate exchanging witness lists prior to trial;
`
`In the event that a listed fact witness has not yet been deposed, that witness
`
`must be made available for deposition before trial, at a time and date to be agreed upon by
`
`the Parties;
`
`3.
`
`If a listed fact witness is not made available for deposition prior to trial, then
`
`their testimony must be excluded; and
`
`4.
`
`Nothing in this Stipulation shall bar seeking additional depositions of
`
`previously deposed witnesses should the Court’s ruling on privilege disputes reveal relevant
`
`information.
`
`DATED: September 23, 2022
`
`RACHEL L. J